Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Would you mind terribly then legitimately explaining why over a hundred eyewitness accounts who all say they saw the same thing shouldn't be considered credible? It would be one thing if only a few people saw the impact, or if it can be shown there were major discrepencies in eyewitness accounts, or if it can be shown most of the eyewitness accounts were really heresay, but NOPE, when so many eyewitnesses who were physically there all specifically say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, the philosophy of "eyewitness accounts aren't reliable" is simply a cop-out and it cannot be used here. Otherwise, you ARE calling them all liars, whether you wish to admit to the fact or not.


I don't have to explain it because I never said it... You on the other hand should explain this comment you posted about me in which every single word is a lie.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by newsaddict
 


if the injustices of the past are not resolved, changing the injustices of the present will be difficult at best, impossible at worst. especially if the past injustice in question affected everything we do today.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't have to explain it because I never said it... You on the other hand should explain this comment you posted about me in which every single word is a lie.


All right, if this is the game you wish to play, fine by me. I invite you to acknowledge that the eyewitness accounts combined with the recovered aircraft wreckage is legitimate proof that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon. Agree to that and I'll retract my statement, because your illogical resistance to these points is what I am basing my statement upon. You ARE the one who made the blanket statement that we cannot accept eyewitness accounts, even though so many of them were all saying the same thing, were you not?

It's one thing to become cynical because of the evidence. It's another thing entirely to insist on being cynical in resistance to the evidence. Which one are you?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





You ARE the one who made the blanket statement that we cannot accept eyewitness accounts, even though so many of them were all saying the same thing, were you not?


No I WAS NOT the one who made that statement.



Agree to that and I'll retract my statement


If you gonna retract you should retract a lot more than this particular lie because it's not greater or lesser a lie than most of what you post here. You once again exposed yourself for what you are, and I don't really care if you retract it. Maybe you can go back and find where I made these blanket statements and prove that I'm wrong about what I think of you.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 



Sorry, but you do not get to set the standards of evidence. You do not get to decide that since there is no clear video, it is logical to reject all other evidence, That is illogical.



GoodolDave ignored my question about what is being described by these First Responders, but I'm wondering what you think about it?



CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.

PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 


No I WAS NOT the one who made that statement.


I went back through this thread to review the meat of this argument, and I discovered the mistake is in fact mine. It was Totallackey who keeps insisting eyewitness accounts cannot be considered valid testimony regardless of how many are all saying the same thing, conveniently whenever it involves testimony that shows he's wrong. It's a case of mistaken identity due to the (cough cough) vacation we all recently took from the 9/11 forum. I apologize and I retract the claim. There, see how easy that was?

To set the record straight, I now erase your name and amend it properly;

Totallackey: What evidence do you have that a plane hit the Pentagon?
Me: a hundred eyewitnesses in the vicinity saw it was a plane that hit the Pentagon
Totallackey: LIES! What else do you have?



If you gonna retract you should retract a lot more than this particular lie because it's not greater or lesser a lie than most of what you post here.


Give me an example please, since the statement that multitudes of eyewitnesses did in fact see the plane hitting the Pentagon is an established fact...or was your brushing everything off you don't want to accept as being true a correct observation all along??



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

GoodolDave ignored my question about what is being described by these First Responders, but I'm wondering what you think about it?


I didn't ignore it; I didn't answer it becuase I didn't notice it. Now that I notice it, I will respond with this:

-On the one hand, we have a eyewitness account of a firefighter saying "he saw orange and red explosions in the middle of the building which came out both sides, and which went up and down and then all around the building". He was there when you and I weren't, and being a firefighter he has absolutely no reason to embellish or make fake statements.

-On the other hand, after the first plane hit, every camera in Manhattan was filming every second of what was happening at the World Trade Center, expecially when it came to covering the collapse of the towers. This eyewitnesses' account places the orange and red flashes up and down the building some time after the collapse of the first building and before the collapse of the second building. You of course have to know that not a single camera captured any of these explosions on film.

So, we now have two separate pieces of evidence that contradict each other and we need to determine which one has the better credibility for the simple reason that they can't both be right. So let me answer your question with a question- how do you propose we do this?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Give me an example please, since the statement that multitudes of eyewitnesses did in fact see the plane hitting the Pentagon is an established fact...or was your brushing everything off you don't want to accept as being true a correct observation all along??


First thing that comes to mind is how you and others make it seem like firefighters expected a complete collapse of WTC 7 when in fact none of them did. Also the way you and others pretend to know what they were describing by saying "definitely secondary explosions'.

Eventhough we don't see the flashes on video footage we have many eyewitnesses to the explosions and we have the final result of complete and rapid collapses of buildings. Take this and the fact that the government started covering up immediately after the attacks. Three skyscrapers collapsed in a way that no other building collapsed without planned implosion before or after 9/11, thousands of people were killed and the White House was trying to block investigation for over a year. I believe the firefighters and other eyewitnesses that there were explosions prior to collapse.

As for the Pentagon I don't and never did say that it wasn't a jet that hit it. Although I don't believe the light pole story, and I have a hard time believing that whatever it was it was not filmed by anyone. And i don't believe that it couldn't been intercepted in time either.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
First thing that comes to mind is how you and others make it seem like firefighters expected a complete collapse of WTC 7 when in fact none of them did. Also the way you and others pretend to know what they were describing by saying "definitely secondary explosions'.


To which I will add...

a) you are splitting hairs between the symantecs of "collapse" and "total collapse" which to me, makes no Earthly difference. Firefighters still confirmed that the out of control fires were causing critical structural damage and they knew from seeing this damage that the building would eventually come down, which disproves Gage's false statements of "isolated pockets of small fires" and explains the missing details of his "NYFD had foreknowledge of the collapse" claims he's deliberately leaving out to make it sound spooky-scary. All you're doing here is arguing over whether Gage is a complete liar or just a partial liar.

b) not a single firefighter who reported these explosions believe to this day that these were controlled demolitions. We know that because such testimony can't NOT be touted by every conspiracy proponent from Richard Gage to Tom Flocco. So yes, I DO know what their opinions of what these explosions were...or to be precise, what it isn't.


Eventhough we don't see the flashes on video footage we have many eyewitnesses to the explosions and we have the final result of complete and rapid collapses of buildings. Take this and the fact that the government started covering up immediately after the attacks. Three skyscrapers collapsed in a way that no other building collapsed without planned implosion before or after 9/11, thousands of people were killed and the White House was trying to block investigation for over a year. I believe the firefighters and other eyewitnesses that there were explosions prior to collapse.


That's NOT an answer. We have video footage taken from almost every possible vantage point of the remaining tower, and if any such "red and orange flashes appearing all around the building and then down its length" occurred it would have been seen live by millions of television viewers and captured on film along with all the other events of the day. Either this firefighter was mistaken, or miles of video and a few million television viewers were magically co-opted to forget what they all saw.

You were the one who kept prompting me to follow you down this rabbit hole, as you recall. It is bad form for you to run away now just because your own path led you to a contradiction you don't want to face. If you believe the rest of the world is wrong and this firefighter is right, please have the integrity to just come out and say it.


As for the Pentagon I don't and never did say that it wasn't a jet that hit it. Although I don't believe the light pole story, and I have a hard time believing that whatever it was it was not filmed by anyone. And i don't believe that it couldn't been intercepted in time either.


Over a hundred eyewitnesses specifically said it was a passenger jet they saw, so your argument over the lack of video is entirely moot. if you're about to accuse them all of lying, then I might as well just as well put you back on that list of accusations I took you off of.
edit on 12-9-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



All you're doing here is arguing over whether Gage is a complete liar or just a partial liar.


nope im not arguing about Gage at all. He might be a liar and he might not be a liar, it doesnt matter what he says because I saw the buildings come down with my own eyes From across the east river and on TV and I don't need anybody to tell me that they were exploding because it's obvious. Now it would be nice to know who was responsible for it but Gage doesn't talk about that and as you know very well the government lied since day one.



b) not a single firefighter who reported these explosions believe to this day that these were controlled demolitions


That is not true but i'm not going to get into it. I know for a fact that many firemen think it was brought down by explosives but they don't speak out for multiple reasons. I don't agree with it and I wish they would start talking. But that's just the way it is for now, maybe it will change.

The ones I know think that the buildings were destroyed with the use of explosives (as in blown up with bombs) Gage calls it a controlled demolition. But once again nobody really cares what he calls it because you could see that they were blown up and didn't just collapse due to planes and fire. Although WTC 7 collapse appeared just like a controllled demolition. Out of control fire for 7 hours could had only destroyed the side which was damaged and maybe days or weeks or even months later it could fall apart piece by piece and thats a big maybe since this building was pretty strong.




That's NOT an answer. We have video footage taken from almost every possible vantage point of the remaining tower, and if any such "red and orange flashes appearing all around the building and then down its length" occurred it would have been seen live by millions of television viewers and captured on film along with all the other events of the day. Either this firefighter was mistaken, or miles of video and a few million television viewers were magically co-opted to forget what they all saw. You were the one who kept prompting me to follow you down this rabbit hole, as you recall. It is bad form for you to run away now just because your own path led you to a contradiction you don't want to face. If you believe the rest of the world is wrong and this firefighter is right, please have the integrity to just come out and say it.


Nearly every person who came out of those buildings before the collapse reported explosions. I was there on 9/13 and explosions were talked about a lot. Dave I believe my own eye and the people i work with, I don't believe that there were no explosives because I worked many scenes of buildings collapses that just does not happen like that without explosives... I wasn't there on 9/11 so can't say that I saw it but I know people that were and they know what they saw. I wish they would go public but I understand why they don't. You can dance around it all you want Dave but you are not convincing since all you do is parrot a known lie told by known liars. I don't know why we can't see flashes in the videos and I don't care because the flashes were witnessed by people I trust and many many other people who told the media about it.


You were the one who kept prompting me to follow you down this rabbit hole,


you are confusing me with someone else again.




Over a hundred eyewitnesses specifically said it was a passenger jet they saw, so your argument over the lack of video is entirely moot. if you're about to accuse them all of lying, then I might as well just as well put you back on that list of accusations I took you off of.


I'm not arguing over the video Dave, maybe you are again confused. I said that I find it hard to believe that there is no video. I'm entitled to my opinion or no? I think Lloyd England is lying for whatever reason because the story of a light pole being pulled out of his taxi cab without leaving a scratch on the hood by him a man who didn't say a single word is just ridiculous. Now why would he lie I don't have a clue but why did the government use this joke as evidence of a jet crashing into the pentagon is suspicious in my opinion.

The Pentagon story is fishy but I'm not arguing that it wasn't flight 77.
edit on 12-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I went back through this thread to review the meat of this argument, and I discovered the mistake is in fact mine. It was Totallackey who keeps insisting eyewitness accounts cannot be considered valid testimony regardless of how many are all saying the same thing, conveniently whenever it involves testimony that shows he's wrong. It's a case of mistaken identity due to the (cough cough) vacation we all recently took from the 9/11 forum. I apologize and I retract the claim. There, see how easy that was? To set the record straight, I now erase your name and amend it properly; Totallackey: What evidence do you have that a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: a hundred eyewitnesses in the vicinity saw it was a plane that hit the Pentagon Totallackey: LIES! What else do you have?

Dave, review what I said. You will find I have also stated no such thing. I have stated eyewitness testimony is unreliable. You are twisting my words and I do not appreciate it.

YOU on the other hand have been VERY DIRECT and CLEAR, stating the full video of the WTC 7 collapse was not included in the Gage documentary. I have been very specific and have directed you to the EXACT TIME where the FULL COLLAPSE was INDEED INCLUDED in the Gage documentary. Again, you are being pointed out as incapable of admitting any sort of mistake. You really need to stick to the NIST Report. If it is so good and true, then bone up on it and come back and talk then...Any further chopping up can wait...



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 




YOU on the other hand have been VERY DIRECT and CLEAR, stating the full video of the WTC 7 collapse was not included in the Gage documentary


They're acting like the six seconds period between the penthouse falling in and the rest of this huge skyscraper collapsing uniformly all the way to the ground in seconds somehow proves that NIST is not full of crap.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Gage did not snip anything from the video. It is all there. Every second of the video from start to finish is included. I watched the documentary. Dave has not. All he need do is go to the time frame I pointed out and he would see the video in its entirety.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by maxella1
 


Gage did not snip anything from the video. It is all there. Every second of the video from start to finish is included. I watched the documentary. Dave has not. All he need do is go to the time frame I pointed out and he would see the video in its entirety.


I know.. Im just saying that the penthouse collapsing six seconds prior to the rest of the building doesn't make it possible without explosives anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

nope im not arguing about Gage at all. He might be a liar and he might not be a liar, it doesnt matter what he says because I saw the buildings come down with my own eyes From across the east river and on TV and I don't need anybody to tell me that they were exploding because it's obvious. Now it would be nice to know who was responsible for it but Gage doesn't talk about that and as you know very well the government lied since day one.


Bait and switch. Did you see the "red and orange explosions up and down the structure" that this paticular person claims to have witnessed? That was the statement that makes his testimony noteworthy, was it not?



That is not true but i'm not going to get into it. I know for a fact that many firemen think it was brought down by explosives but they don't speak out for multiple reasons. I don't agree with it and I wish they would start talking. But that's just the way it is for now, maybe it will change.


More bait and switch. I didn't say "firemen". I said "firemen why were physically there". Of course there might be firemen who thinks it was brought down by explosives. The main reason is because they weren't there and they're relying on the drivel those conspiracy con artists are putting out If the eyewitness who WAS there and who saw the "red and orange flashes up and down the building" believes the building was brought down by controlled demolitions, I invite you to show it.



Nearly every person who came out of those buildings before the collapse reported explosions. I was there on 9/13 and explosions were talked about a lot. Dave I believe my own eye and the people i work with, I don't believe that there were no explosives because I worked many scenes of buildings collapses that just does not happen like that without explosives...


Stop the game playing, Maxella. Noone ever said "there were no explosions", least of all me. I talked to a woman who worked in the building at the time and even she heard explosions. The discussion is over the conspiracy theorists deliberately making the explosions out to be explosives rather than any of the hundred thousand other reasons that something might go BOOM when set on fire.

FYI that woman who was there thinks the "controlled demeolitions" theorists are all nuts.


I'm not arguing over the video Dave, maybe you are again confused. I said that I find it hard to believe that there is no video. I'm entitled to my opinion or no? I think Lloyd England is lying for whatever reason because the story of a light pole being pulled out of his taxi cab without leaving a scratch on the hood by him a man who didn't say a single word is just ridiculous. Now why would he lie I don't have a clue but why did the government use this joke as evidence of a jet crashing into the pentagon is suspicious in my opinion.


There were a hell of a lot more eyewitnesses than just Lloyd England. The fact that you're specifically targetting Lloyd England's testimony exclusively while ignoring everyone else's (such as the immigrant form El Salvador workign as a groundskeeper) tells me you know that already.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Dave, review what I said. You will find I have also stated no such thing. I have stated eyewitness testimony is unreliable. You are twisting my words and I do not appreciate it.


Nice attempt at feigning indignation, but we both know at the end of the day, you're really NOT claiming "eyewitness testimony is unreliable". You're claiming the eyewitness testimony AT THE PENTAGON is unreliable. I posted a lengthly list of eyewitnesses who were there (the Pentagon Is in the middle of an industrial park surrounded by highways, after all), and they all specifically say they saw the same thing- a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. By the sheer number of eyewitness reports that confirm the same thing, it DOES make their testimony reliable, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

So in the end what's the difference between your saying they're lying and your saying their testimony is "unreliable" because you don't want to believe what they're saying is true, exactly? If 100 people all similarly stated they saw a man running down main street naked, you wouldn't be contesting their accounts with anywhere near the same blind zealotry. You know that and so do I.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Bait and switch. Did you see the "red and orange explosions up and down the structure" that this paticular person claims to have witnessed? That was the statement that makes his testimony noteworthy, was it not?


To get an answer to your questions all you need to do is read the post you are responding to.. And it's not just one particular person by the way.




More bait and switch. I didn't say "firemen". I said "firemen why were physically there". Of course there might be firemen who thinks it was brought down by explosives. The main reason is because they weren't there and they're relying on the drivel those conspiracy con artists are putting out If the eyewitness who WAS there and who saw the "red and orange flashes up and down the building" believes the building was brought down by controlled demolitions, I invite you to show it.


The testimony of red and orange flashes came from firemen and other first responders who were physically there.
Read what I said regarding the controlled demolition again Dave.
I would love to know what do you think the red and orange flashes up and down the building were caused by if not explosives? This is third time I ask you by the way..



Stop the game playing, Maxella. Noone ever said "there were no explosions", least of all me. I talked to a woman who worked in the building at the time and even she heard explosions. The discussion is over the conspiracy theorists deliberately making the explosions out to be explosives rather than any of the hundred thousand other reasons that something might go BOOM when set on fire.


Here's the problem Dave, there were no fire where something went BOOM. But we already had that discussion you just forgot as usual.



FYI that woman who was there thinks the "controlled demeolitions" theorists are all nuts.


Ask her what was exploding and if she thinks that blowing up a building and a controlled demolition is the same thing.. Also list some of the things that you think were exploding on floors far below the impact level?




There were a hell of a lot more eyewitnesses than just Lloyd England. The fact that you're specifically targetting Lloyd England's testimony exclusively while ignoring everyone else's (such as the immigrant form El Salvador workign as a groundskeeper) tells me you know that already.


Here again you failed to read what I said about the Pentagon. Lloyd England is full of crap with his light pole story but that proves nothing.

Do you personally believe his story Dave? If you do please explain to me how did two people pulled it out of the windshield without a leaving a scratch on the hood of his taxi cab, and if you don't please explain why would the government use this story to prove that a jet hit the pentagon?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 


The testimony of red and orange flashes came from firemen and other first responders who were physically there.
Read what I said regarding the controlled demolition again Dave.


I did. I also asked you who was physically there that still believes these were controlled demolitions and all I can get out of you is "anonymous people who are too afraid to tell anyone what they know, not even you". I really don't need to explain just how worthless that is, do I?



I would love to know what do you think the red and orange flashes up and down the building were caused by if not explosives? This is third time I ask you by the way..


I cannot say because I don't have enough information to offer anything but a guess. If they saw these flashes in or near the seventh and eighth floor this was almost certainly flammable objects at the mechanical floor at that location exploding from the fires- pressurized pipes, electrical transformers, fuel tanks for the emergency generators, or whatever. We know from William Rodriguez' testimony that flames from the impact came down the elevator shaft all the way to the basement and had enough pressure to push the elevator down several floors (which is almost certainly the explosion he felt nearby), so it stands to reason this would cause undocumented fires to break out elsewhere in the building. It would also explain why it wasn't seen on any of the video- that floor would have been below the line of nearby skyscrapers and would be out of view of the cameras.

This is nothing but speculation on my part, however. All I know is that it wasn't caused by controlled demolitions.



Here's the problem Dave, there were no fire where something went BOOM. But we already had that discussion you just forgot as usual.


Refresh my memory then, since apparently I missed that- exacty what level were these explosions documented to have occurred? This is 100% news to me.



Ask her what was exploding and if she thinks that blowing up a building and a controlled demolition is the same thing.. Also list some of the things that you think were exploding on floors far below the impact level?


I did. She was in fact the one who pointed out the building was chock full of pressurized pipes. She told me that as they were clearing out the wreckage they came across an intact air conditioning circulation component that was pressurized and workmen needed to bleed the refrigerant from the system before they went to work with their acetalyne torches or else there would have been yet another BOOM. She told me in no uncertain terms that it would utterly impossible for demolitions to have been planted in the building, and the people who propose such things are utterly ignorant of how the security in the building was handled. She knew how the security worked and even personally knew John O'Neill.

I will mention no names. All I will say is that she's the very tall woman from New Jersey who worked in the south tower you occasionally see at the memorials.


Here again you failed to read what I said about the Pentagon. Lloyd England is full of crap with his light pole story but that proves nothing.


The "full of crap" you're referring to is based entirely upon ONE photograph which contained NO detailed close ups of the damage, so you'll forgive me when I say this is entirely speculative on your part, but this is neither here nor there. The lightpoles lying on the highway and on the myriad grassy fields is an established fact, so if you wish to claim he actually knocked over the lightpole himself with his cab and he's falsely claiming the plane knocked it over, be my guest, but the fact does not refute the fact a plane still hit the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Bro, don't even bother with debating with GoodOlDave aka G.O.D.

If you personally knew someone who was on the alleged demolition team who brought down the towers he would still deny everything and stick to the official story. It's just how some people are, unfortunately he found his way to this forum and continues to not take anyone else's views into consideration. The NIST even admits they modeled out the initial collapse but didn't bother to calculate the entire collapse because it explains itself on tape. (what a joke)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by totallackey
 


Okay this is where I have to step in and point out that you are lying when you say a CNN reporter said there were no pieces of the plane. What he sai that there was no evidence the plane had hit the GROUND prior to hitting the building.


I don't think you're right vipertech. I think he's referring to Jamie McIntyre from CNN who said (and I quote)

"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed." - CNN (09/11/01)"

Not sure if this is the exact video because I don't have sound on the comp I'm currently on






top topics



 
53
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join